Simonkelly wrote:I have read a few of these threads and have decided to post my opinion on this one. What I'm mildly amused about is posters coming in with I told you so she's innocent. And her detractors saying nothing.
What can you say ? It would just be yanked the minute you said anything ANYWAY...
I have to say I'm not a Marion Jones hater! I wouldn't be a big fan either because of the fact that she associates herself with known cheats. As in Charlie Francis, Tim Montgomery, CJ Hunter, Trevor Graham - not putting Riddick in that but I'm not sure.
tafnut wrote:I really . . . REALLY . . . REALLY . . . REALLY . . . want to believe in her innocence, but now I have absolutely no idea WHAT to believe. That 'A' positive broke my spirit, and I can't will it back.
I agree, there is a lot of evidence to say that she has been taking drugs, but now you have this.
I can't say I am too surprised, because why would a sprinter take EPO?
What evidence? she had a 16year old world best of 11.14 by 22 she had 10.76 which is an improvement of 0.38 over 5 years or 0.076 a year - not a helluva lot during those ages even if she was mainly doing basketball.
Like the fact she was strongly linked to BALCO, her ex-shot putting husband (can't recall his name) reporting that he walked into a room and saw her injecting a needle into her stomach. Don't know if this is true or not.
Now that Marion's B test has come back negative, something really should be done to stop this leaking of A test results. Even as far back as Mary Slaney's leak of her positive A testosterone result in the late 90's, this type of leak has become all too common and very damaging for athletes.
I recall recently on the emmy awards a few weeks ago, the host Conan O'Brien made some lame and ill-informed joke about someone being more full of testosterone than Marion Jones. So her reputation has been severely damaged by this leak.
Say what you will about Marion and others who are under a cloud of suspicion, but if the drug enforcement agencies continue to operate with such wanton lack of adherence to their own guidelines on public disclosure, then this sort of media circus hurts their own credibility as well.
I mean, haven't ALL the recent initial A positives been leaks? Landis, Gatlin, Jones? Makes it seem like a witch hunt rather than a professional agency trying to fairly and judiciously find the real drug cheats. If the drug testing agencies want to restore credibility to amateur athletics, they need to get their own houses in order and set the tone for professionalism and reliably sound disclosure protocols. Undercuts their own credibility in testing and procedural containment when this sort of reckless leaking becomes the norm. If they genuinely cared about the athletes, then they would make absolutely sure that no A results would be announced before the B sample is tested.
I mean, how difficult can it be to contain this information between the span of two drug tests? If they cannot maintain this sort of simple confidentiality, when the reputation of athletes is at stake, then the drug agencies need a higher agency to police THEM so that they abide by their own rules and are penalized when they leak these results and irreperably damage the reputation of athletes who are ultimately found not guilty of doping. Perhaps a rule should be enacted to where the any positive A result would be discarded if it is leaked before a B sample confirms the doping allegation. That would seem fair to me.
The Marion Haters may get their pound of flesh eventually, but not today. I hope her testimony to a grand jury a while back does not come back to bite her. I have not heard anything about her possibly perjuring herself, so she may be OK there. What is the statute of limitation for perjury? Also, what is the status of the check-counterfeiting scheme to which she has been linked? Was she even indicted?
Last edited by nctrackfan on Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Marion Jones Grand Jury testimony is said to be grossly inconsistent with the testimony offered by several others in connection with her - something which Victor Conte revealed to one of the San Francisco Chronicle reporters in an e-mail exchange...testimony he wrote will "come back and bite her in the butt".
On the topic of the EPO test there seems to be a rather common misconception, which is in evidence in comments by Deena Kastor. The duration of identifiable rEPO is relatively brief, often given as 48 to 72 hours. This feature is cited as one reason for its utilization.
The commenter makes the mistaken inference that if a sample is kept a little bit longer the rEPO signal will deteriorate. It is the difference between what happens metabolically versus when in cold storage. Note that th eFrench lab test 6-year old urine samples and it was reported that a number of those tested provided an indication of rEPO.